AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[informal]

Only reason I have tried to point this out many times so far is due to peoples expectations. Those expecting 100% native 8 core multithreaded performance have unrealistic expectations. Hopefully this gives them a better idea so they can have more realistic expectations.

Well to be honest,they already said so @ Analyst Day presentations. They stated "80% of CMP" approach while having less die area and less power draw. So this 80% means 0.8x the performance of "native" X8 Bulldozer,done the old way of stacking cores next to each other. In other words,without knowing if they actually improved the "cores"/clusters versus K10,the speedup is a far cry from 33% more we have on paper and in marketing slides.

[dess]

Well to be honest,they already said so @ Analyst Day presentations. They stated "80% of CMP" approach while having less die area and less power draw. So this 80% means 0.8x the performance of "native" X8 Bulldozer,done the old way of stacking cores next to each other.

Well, they've indicated 80% gain here, so +80%, therefore 0.9x of itself as a true 8-core.

13063_cmt.jpg

BTW, if it finally turns out the IPC is indeed lower than with K10, per core, I have an excuse for JF. At the beginning they've called a module a core (and a core an integer cluster), right? Well, perhaps an engineer referred to a module really when (s)he told JF that "IPC is higher, per core"...